| Home | Movies A-M | Movies N-Z | News |
Poster (c) New Line Cinema
Evan (Kutcher) has gone through a troubled childhood (filled with the stupidest kids you've even seen on film), and had experienced numerous blackouts. He's better now, but finds a way to go back in time to change the horrifying events of his past. What he doesn't realize (until the end-most people would've caught on as soon as possible) that everything he does affects his whole life ahead of him. It seems to affect Kayleigh (Amy Smart) the most in each one, where she goes from sorority girl to waitress to prostitute. The like happens to everyone else Evan knows. But no matter how much he screws it up, he keeps on truckin' so that his life is perfect.
This story is much like Donnie Darko (as it has been said multiple times), but Darko knows where its going and has a purpose. In The Butterfly Effect, it takes itself way too seriously. The first half of the movie is basically Evan's past, where troubling events take place. The second half is Evan going back to fix his mistakes. The worst part is, Evan doesn't even think of helping others with these powers of his. There's a scene in a movie theater (where they're showing two New Line Cinema movies, obviously), and some people unrelated to him get hurt. Why not go back and stop that? Also, when Evan goes back to save a mother and daughter, he does it for himself, not for the people that would be killed. And we're supposed to feel along with this selfish character? In a movie as dark and serious as this, it deals with silly topics, like time travel. Time travel only works humorously (Back to the Future) or when explained properly (Donnie Darko). Neither occur in The Butterfly Effect. I had been told many times that to like this movie I couldn't take it seriously. I tried not to, but the events that occur in the movie (including child porn and animal abuse) are impossible to take lightly. At least the movie deals with them in a serious matter.
The concept is a pretty cool concept, but once again, it's destroyed by the actual dialogue written. It's all so basic and clichéd I could basically guess what they were about to say next. Also, why must they have begun with a scene of the climax? Movies always do that, often for a purpose. There was no reason here. The whole movie was uneven-half of the movie was basically revisited over and over again in the second half, which unnecessarily spends much of its time in a prison. On another note, I liked the way that everything tied together (I'm not talking about the ending) and that the unanswered questions from throughout the movie were eventually taken into consideration, such as the purpose of Evan's blackouts. I watched the director's cut, and the alternate ending seemed gutsy, but I really liked it. I read about the other ending, and I prefer this one.
This almost seemed like a typical teen movie (more so than it already is) by the acting. Kutcher can't act worth beans, and Amy Smart isn't exactly Katherine Hepburn either. The only two remarkable people in the cast were Eric Stoltz (as the aforementioned child pornographer) and Ethan Suplee (as Evan's Goth roomate), who always put in great acting jobs. But this movie, which is sure to wow the MTV generation, has a great idea at its fingertips, but can't seem the right way to execute it.
Rated R for violence, sexual content, language and brief drug use.
Review Date: July 11, 2004